Fiscal views
Fiscal
I am a Social Democrat (anti statist and Social Market variety), Left Libertarian(including Mutualist but especially Mutualism lite [Libertarian Market Socialism] and non socialist Mutualism i.e Market Anarchist)/Minarchist, Anarcho (‘conlib on steroids’ Anarchist) Libertarian and Peronist (Menemism)
I support the Labour Party UK (New Labour/Jeremy Corbyn-Keri Starmer Labour/Third Way/Third Way Social Democracy)
My combined economic views are concepts of Economic Progressiveness (i.e SupCap, Neo Keynesianism, Libertarian Marxism, Democratic Classical Liberalism with some elements of Libertarian Socialism, some ideas from Communism crus romeand other leftish wing schools of socioeconomic thought). This can be seen in virtually all of my economic views in this blog
I support the Libertarian Party Tea Party
Expanded
I want us to either have a New Keynesianism ,Peronist (Menemist) Social Market economy that uses a Social Capital (HumanisticCap fused with DemocraticCap) as a social safety net or to transition to a Post Statist Conservative Revolutionary society
New Keynesianism Peronist (Menemist) Social Market economy that uses a Social Capital (HumanisticCap fused with DemocraticCap) as a social safety net
Based on a macroeconomic school of thought that would strive to provide more consistent micro-foundations to Keynesianism. New Keynesianism would be Keynesian in the short run but neoclassical in the long run
Like for menu costs, the restaurants would print out new menus in response to their price changes. However, the menu cost would actually be the cost of the firms adjusting to their nominal prices.
This burden would cause businesses to change prices slowly instead of continuously.
The macroeconomic effect of changing a single firm's price on the demand of all products would be "aggregate-demand externality."
The staggering of prices: Using this New Keynesian model, enterprises wouldn’t set prices at the exact same time. Each would care about its price relative to the ones that are charged by other firms. Because of this, the prices would be sluggish because no firms would want to be the first to increase its price significantly.
Coordination failure: Because the number of businesses is a lot, it's hard to predict what other businesses may do after the money supply adjustment. The failure of businesses to coordinate such changes in prices is a possible explanation for recessions that New Keynesianism would be used to point out
Efficiency wages: New Keynesianism would be used to show how markets might fail to clear due to the tendency of employers to pay above equilibrium wages.
Abnormally high wages cause existing workers to be more productive and thus less likely to switch to a new job. New Keynesianism would shine a light on this
Moreover, New Keynesianism would have two models that don't appear in traditional Keynesianism:
New Keynesian DSGE model would shine a light on how enterprises and households are assumed to have rational expectations, but prices are set by monopolistically competitive firms and can not shift quickly enough or without cost.
New Keynesian Phillips Curve ,similar to an expectations-augmented Phillips curve, would show ho the trade-off between unemployment and inflation is only applicable in the short run.
New Keynesianism would better for Monetarism and Neoliberalism than regular Keynesianism is to them
This would be paired with a Peronist (Menemist) Social market economy
In this system, there would be some National Liberal Conservatism (similar to Civic Nationalism) including protectionism (or some elements of a modern Convertibility plan), Left Wing nationalism (for legal citizens) fused with psuedo Maoism, Eric Adams law and order, generally variable to liberal policies on social issues, Euroskepticism , strong border security , patriotic values etc
This Social Market economy would use the above New Keynesian model. It would be rooted in free market economic liberalness, along with economic intervention to ensure fair competition(in a New Keynesian way). It would provide a moderate or even more than moderate welfare state.
This Social Market Economy would be manifested in a privatized market economy (used as an allocation mechanism) which output would be increased through moderate/New Keynesian economic interventionism on behalf of the state. This tri pairing could work and may even be complimentary, as this would decrease poverty and still allow economic freedom.
The main tenets of this Social market economy would be private property (including strategic privatizations like in Argentina under Carlos Menem cm), free trade, at least some fiscal conservatismcm, unregulated prices, moderate (or more than moderate) economic intervention, along with other welfare measures like pensions, health care, unemployment benefits. There would also be an occupation of public positions by business people and flexible, level headed , fiscally responsible people cm
In this path there would be direct elections (maybe with ballotage) with the electoral college being abolished cm. There would be
During economic criseses there would likely be a shift toward Social Capital (DemocraticCap-HumanisticCap) as a social safety net which would include either an expansion of the welfare state to mediate social class conflict and catering to worker demands (including social insurance and job training programs) or Universal basic income. Other aspects of this social safety net would be redistributive policies like income transfers fiscal financing of education and expanded pensions
This social safety net would unite humanism (like the safety and health needs of people and the environment) with market forces using a market-based economy with a emphasis on private enterprise.
This Social Capital social safety net would have a business world that would be socially conscious where investors would be content to recoup their investments but would not expect additional dividends. There would be conversion of time deposits into government bonds.
There would be a blending of the non-profit and for-profit sectors in this social safety net. If investors would accept the decrease in financial returns for those on a social level, this Social Capital social safety net would become a successful force in driving economic and social change.
Further more this social safety net would include resource allocation which would be according to both marginal productivity and social need. This would be determined by decisions that would be reached through democratic politics
In this Social Capital social safety there would also be an autonomous democratic state that would enact policies which in effect would create a compromise between upper and lower classes, while it would remain compatible with free-market economic liberalism (as noted above).
This social safety net would also system include cooperative economic institutions including institutions which would facilitate the bargaining between the government bodies and business-labour organizations (like unions), and those organizations that regulate the employee-management relationships within private firms.
Option 2 transition path to a Post Statist Conservative Revolutionary society
We would use a non Socialist Mutualism to get to our Post Statist Conservative Revolutionary society.
We would first need to switch to a Distributist Libertarianism economy before using a a non Socialist Mutualism to get there
With Distributist Libertarianism there would be an economic system based on widely-spread property ownership and a society that is culturally based on Catholic social teachings.
This temporary Distributist Libertarianism economy would not be operated under the belief that laissez-faire Austrian school economics (but it would use this type of Austrian economics) would result in an unfair concentration of power, but rather that the vast majority of concentration of power in a capitalist economic systems occurs due to state intervention in the economy (for example; Intellectual "Property", Subsidies, Inconsistent Taxation, etc)
In this temporary Distributist Libertarianism economy the state would only have most of its power in most matters over the Federal Government. There would be less taxation which would deplete the power of the Federal Government. In turn the government would be forced to give up certain arms that are no longer needed (like the ATF)
Distributist Libertarianism, entails that State's should have In order to achieve that, in the essay "Unlocking Existentialism in An Economy: Southern Distributism in a Nutshell" an idea was proposed that less taxation would starve the power of the. This would require the.
Moreover, , in this temporary Distributist Libertarianism economy , vertical integration would be banned to allow more competition within the market, and to later (as we get closer to our Post Statist Conservative Revolutionary society) have guilds within local economies to protect small businesses and workers
This temporary Distributist Libertarianism economy would contain many dynamic thoughts from a Laissez-Faire approach, to a more "Bull-Moose yet Hamiltonian" Southern Distributism approach. The temporary Distributist Libertarianism economy would structure our society in a way that maximizes human freedom and ensures a wide distribution of wealth.
Then we would be in our non Socialist Mutualism stage. In this non Socialist Mutualism stage, there would be local activist, alternative institutions and mutual-aid organizations formed and direct action
In our non Socialist Mutualism stage , through self organization that is based on cooperative and libertarian participation we would achieve equality. It would be more-or-less market-oriented and more anti corporatist (until we restructure corporatism in our eventual Post Statist Conservative Revolutionary society) than anti Capitalist (but it would still be anti Capitalist)
In our non Socialist Mutualism stage , corporations that are dependent on the state largesse would be seized by workers and others
In our non Socialist Mutualism stage ,redistribution of wealth would occur. However, redistribution of wealth would only be effected by the legal system (apart from the state) than through other methods of redistribution of wealth
That would deny the validity of privileges that were secured by the state which only serve to preserve the well connected bourgeois while causing the poor to be poor. Through solidaristic mutual aide, and via a privilege liberated market (as mentioned above) , people would eat the rich so to speak. Mutual aide would be used here because it treats people giving and receiving aide as equal instead of poor and non poor (so it dignifies the poor)
Other elements of this non Socialist Mutualism stage I would want to be implemented can be found here in this Alliance of the Libertarian Left collection (mostly Murray Rothbard during his alliance with the New Left)
If our non Socialist Mutualism to became bumpy or fell apart (like the USSR’s path to ‘Communism’, we would switch to Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) to lead us to that society
Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) would follow the libertarian principle of limited government that would be combined with the economic view that while the means of production would belong to the workers who use them, the goods and services would be provided through a market (Socialist) economy that worker owned businesses and co-ops contribute to
This would transition path would either a representative state with very limited power, or a municipal direct democracy, most likely with elected administrators who are at higher levels of government
Here are more aspects of how this transition path would be
In this Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) transitional path, it very well possilikely may include things below:
Individual liberty and unifies the social, individualist, and market schools of anarchist thought,
Free association, free banking, reciprocity in the form of mutual aid, workplace democracy, workers' self-management, gradualism , anti Capitalist and dual power
In this Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) transitional path the primary aspects of labor would be required to produce a good or service. Anyone who would sell goods would charge no more than the cost to themselves of acquiring these goods.
Producers would exchange their goods at cost-value using systems of contract.
This could be based on cost-value that is based on fixed assumptions on the value of labor-hours, and other factors such as the labor intensity of labor, work nature . There might be expanded notions of federation.
In this Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) transitional path , dual power likely could be used to build alternative institutions to the ones that currently exist in modern society.
As PJ Proudhon exlained “Beneath the governmental machinery, in the shadow of political institutions, out of the sight of statemen and priests, society is producing its own organism, slowly and silently; and constructing a new order, the expression of its vitality and autonomy.”
Dual power is a more specific scenario where a revolutionary entity would be intentionally maintaining the structure of the previous political institutions until the power of the previous institution is weakened enough such that the revolutionary entity could overtake it entirely.
In this Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) transitional path, association would only be necessary where there would be an organic combination of forces.
This operation would require specialization and a lot of various workers that would perform their individual tasks to complete a unified product (like a factory).
In this situation, in this Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) transitional path, workers very well might be inherently dependent on each other as without association they would be related as subordinate and superior, master and wage slave. An operation that could be performed by an person without the help of specialized workers would not require association.
PJ Proudhon argued that peasants don’t require societal form and that only feigned association that are for solidarity purposes in abolishing rents, buying clubs and so on. Proudhon recognized that their work is inherently sovereign and free
This Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) transitional path might involve creating an industrial democracy (a system where workplaces would be democratically handed over to organized workers' associations). Such associations would be models for agriculture, industry and trade.
In this Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite), workers might not any longer sell their labor to a capitalist but rather work for themselves in co-ops.
PJ Proudhon's market socialism that we might use in our Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) transitional path is indissolubly linked to his idea of an industrial democracy and the self management of workers
In this Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) transitional path, there would likely be mutual credit where free banking might be taken back by the people to establish systems of free credit.
This would because the banks have a credit monopoly, just like capitalists have a means of production monopoly or that landlords have a land monopoly.
Banks essentially create money by lending out deposits that don’t actually belong to them, then charging difference interest.
In this Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) transitional path, if we establish a mutual savings bank or credit union that is run democratically, it would be possible to issue free credit in order for money to be created for the benefit of the participants instead of for the benefit of the bankers.
In this Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) transitional path, the motto for property might be property is theft", "property is liberty" and "property is impossible“
This would be to distinguish between what two distinct forms of property that are often bound up in the single label.
This is the distinction between property that is created by coercion and property that is created by labor.
Property would be theft when it’s related to a landowner or capitalist whose ownership of it is derived from conquest or exploitation and is only maintained through the state, property laws, police, etc
Property would be freedom for the lower income people or artisan family who has a natural right to a home, land which they may cultivate, basically to tools of a trade and the fruits of that labor. But they would not have them to ownership or control of the lands and lives of other people.
The former would be considered illegitimate property while the latter would be considered legitimate property.
On this Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) transitional path, if we use this system, it would awaken in people the appreciation of and desire for freedom, but also to inspire them a determination to abolish the legal restrictions that are now placed upon non-invasive human activities and to institute (through purely voluntary associations), such measures that will liberate all of us from the exactions of privilege and the power of concentrated capital.
This Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) differs from anarcho-communism and similar collectivist philosophies by its support for private property
Unlike capitalist private-property supporters, Proudhon stressed equality. He believed that all workers should own property and have access to capital. Proudhon stressed that in every co-op "every worker employed in the association [must have] an undivided share in the property of the company"
In this Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) transitional path, we probably would use Usufruct
If so, land would not be a commodity to be bought and sold, but be conditional titles that would be based on occupancy and use norms.
There would be debate about whether an individual would have a legit claim to land ownership of land if he or she is not currently using that land but in fact already incorporated his or her labor into it.
But there would be no debate about the fact that everything that is produced by human labor and machines would be owned as personal property.
There would be a rejection of the idea of non-personal property and non-proviso Lockean sticky property. Any property that is obtained through through violence, exploitation, or bought with money that was gained violating usufruct property norms would considered illegitimate
By establishing usufruct property norms, exclusive non-personal ownership of the means of production by the capitalist class would be eliminated.
The laboring classes would then be able to directly access the means of production, which would enable them to freely work and produce in worker owned enterprises while they would retain the full value of whatever they sell.
In this Libertarian Market Socialist path (Libertarian Socialism with Market Socialism. i.e Mutualism Lite) transitional path, its more than likely that Wage labor (wage slavery variant) would be eliminated and it would be impossible to become a capitalist due to the widespread labor market would no longer existing. No one would be able to own the means of production in the form of non-personal property (two ingredients that are necessary for the exploitation of labor). The capitalist class would thus labor along with the rest of society
Then we would be in our Post Statist Conservative Revolutionary society
This Post Statist Conservative Revolutionary society would be autonomous , anti capitalist and especially anti international capitalist. It would be part of a bunch of transnational worker societies that would continue to be run with Libertarian socialism within a market socialist economy. But guild socialism would be involved now
The Guild Socialism (which is also libertarian) would advocate for continued and or more worker ownership of the Means of Production but now through trade guilds that would have an implied contractual relationship with the public.
The guilds would also use some aspects of Social corporatist organizational structure and negotiating tactics that are based on a social partnership between the interests of entrepreneurs/unions and labor (there would be no capital or corporations since in our transition phase we phased those out).
They would use collective bargaining and the limited/minimal state or post state adjacent would be involved. They would be mutually engaged consultations that are mediated by the limited/minimum state or post state adjacent.
There would also be even more democratic workplaces
This would be amongst a backdrop of a supranational anarchistic limited/minimum state/post state (similar to what Mikhail Bakunin wanted) . These societies would have some culturally regional liberal chauvinism amongst a greater belonging of this type of supranational structure.
There would be a monarch adjacent (leader) that is counterposed against state or state adjacent bureaucracy, a representative for the people against the limited/minimum state or post state adjacent.
These societies (with big bank broken up and run Mutually) would be autonomously patriotic
These societies would have a Meritocratic system like this but where the community itself gets to decide themselves. This also entails ecological protection of the workers land that they helped create through blood, tears and sweat
These societies might be a Minarchist state with limited or minimal state . This would include temporary measures with a social safety net that benefits the working class (but ideally and likely using non state authority since this Minarchist state would likely have no control over the monetary policy) .
With no state or a limited or minimal state, the Gold standard would be able to be brought back and we would might even have a gold based economy
Antis and Innies
I am an Anti Crony Capitalism , Anti Monopoly Capitalism and systematically very wary of to against virtually all other forms of Capitalism (that I know of)
Capitalism is sadly arising as a new class society which is directly from the old class society of the Middle Ages. Capitalism was founded on an act of massive robbery as the earlier feudal conquest of the land. Capitalism has been maintained to the present time by the continual state intervention to protect its system of privilege without which its survival is unthinkable We need to build worker solidarity. This means through organization, some type of real unionization that are committed to the working class and is interested in worker autonomy, not government patronage and not just the union members themselves left
While I am a Social Democrat and I am pretty much okish with many types of Socialism (like the ones in this blog), I am against Socialism without adjectives and what the Republicans falsely label as ‘Socialism’. To quote F Hayek “if socialists (the bad ones) knew economics they wouldn’t be socialists (the bad forms of socialism)”. I encourage Conservative Socialists to join our side
I am against Authoritarianism
I am anti statism
I am especially anti authoritarian statism
I am generally Anti New Deal as I feel the New Deal lead to a consistent, negative spiral of our country’s values
Objectivism is not sensible. Economic intervention in order to ensure fair competition. But I oppose all government interference in economic affairs that does not align with the Left Libertarian ideology . The latter type of big gov is groundless, pernicious dichotomy
I am Anti Woke Communism, and Anti one word Communism . I am also against the vast majority of all other forms of Communism too. I do incorporate some ideas from Communism (along with Ultranational Conservatism) into my views
I am against the corrupt , anti democratic bourgeois of our society. They use fake philanthropy to profit off of marginalized groups. They are not loyal to the people who depend on them and they also cause scandals and division in our country. We must break down barriers to neutralize their negative effects
I reject mainstream monetary policies and traditional currencies, such as central banking and state-issued currency and possibly replacing them with labor notes (and I prefer the abolishment of wage labor or at the very least reforming the wages system to shift the power balance in workers’ favor)
If AnCaps confusing free markets with Capitalism is disqualifies them as Anarchists so should anti market Anarchists be disqualified for being anti Left Wing Free Market Anarchism since the latter is only against Left Wing Free Markets due to also confusing free markets with Capitalism
I am fine with the fluidity and deep intermingling of AnCaps and Left wing free market Anarchists. Voltairine herself wasn’t afraid to associate with the label of capitalist
I don’t care for Maoism since it started this woke mess we are in now
I am against Cultural Marxism and one word Marxism and we need to stop the spread of Cultural Marxism and reform one word Marxism
The Frankfurt School is related to Post modernism and post structuralism which is basically what we call Cultural Marxism
I am Anti Postmodernism. Post Modernists try to brainwash us and that needs to end
I virtually am against vulgar libertarianism and the rationalization of the power relations that prevail in existing corporate capitalism
labor
I support protecting civil liberties. The state is a foe to our civil liberties and the best way to safeguard our civil liberties is to protect each other’s control over our bodies and justly acquired possessions
I favor co-operative business and collectivized production in ways that can be seen throughout this blog They are better than traditional capitalist systems. I believe Anarchistic concepts like business co ops and collectivism can lead to the type of moral utopia that right libertarians envision (but without capitalism and with anarchist principles).
Workplace hierarchies are often morally objectionable. Hierarchical workplaces are more likely given state action. Hierarchies limit the workers’ ability to use their knowledge and skills to respond in a flexible and effective way to production and distribution challenges and to meet customer needs.
The ineffectiveness of hierarchies make them less common aspects of worklife, and increase the odds that people would be able to choose better alternatives offering more freedom and dignity (self employment or work partnerships or work co ops), in the absence of privileges that lowered the costs of maintaining said hierarchies and raised the costs of opting out of them (like by making self employment more costly, and thus more risky). State action also redirects wealth to those interested in seeing that they and the people like them rule the workplace; and the state’s union regulations limit the ways unions can challenge workplace hierarchies.
I support the right of free people to associate or not associate in labor unions and I believe that employers should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. I believe unions are cool.
I support trade to be represented by equal amounts of labour in the market. I support grass roots empowerment
We need to build worker solidarity. This means through organization, some type of real unionization that are committed to the working class and is interested in worker autonomy, not government patronage and not just the union members themselves
Third World sweatshops would not be the “best alternative” in the absence of government manipulation
I am against government subsides to buisness labor etc
We must protect the working people
F*ck Right to Work.
As can be seen in this blog, I believe in at least some level of worker ownership of the means of production, which may include co-ops (workers collectively or by the individual(s) using them) trade unions (like the Labour Party UK) , direct democracy or worker councils.
I support solidarity vis-à-vis bosses
I want to humanize work life
Gov bank corp
I support the passage of the Balanced Budget Amendment
I believe the gov’s only role in economics is to protect property rights , adjudicate disputes, and protect voluntary trade through a legal framework
I generally disapprove of the job that Joe Biden has done with the economy as President. Joe Biden has made the economy worse as President
I strongly prefer that corporate privileges be repealed before the regulatory restrictions on how those privileges may be exercised.
I am against Big Corps like Walmart being favored and them being supported by highway subsidies and eminent domain.
I am wary about the fictive personhood of the limited liability corporation
I am against the Parliamentary system
I generally believe in the democratization of the economy to an extent
I generally support free market policies (like free markets combining a market capitalist economic system along with social policies and enough regulation to establish both fair competition within the market and generally a welfare state) This can be seen throughout this blog
I can endure but not really support absentee landlordism
I call for the removal of the Federal Reserve (which I outline above via mutual banking and credit unions etc)
Personally, on intellectual property I tend to drift between Lyndon Spooner thought (pro intellectual property) and 1960s M Rothbardian (anti intellectual property)
I tend to predict a drastic fall in loan prices due to free competition in the credit industry. I deny that it would ever fall to zero. I call this nonzero residuum ‘interest’
I support planned efforts to influence our economy through an organic means of a comprehensive economic policy that is coupled with flexible adaptation to market studies.
I support combining monetary, credit, trade, tax, customs, investment and social policies as well as other measures to create an economy which serves the welfare and ‘needs’ (what I deem as needs) of the entire population
I support increased taxing on oil, alcohol, coal, tobacco
I am mixed on cutting taxes
I am ok with some underground markets
I support the removal of the IRS
I am ok with removing the income tax
I don’t have a lot of confidence in strategies that work through the government
I strongly prefer to develop alternative institutions and methods of working around the state as can be seen throughout this blog
Socioeconomic
I am all for undermining structural poverty. Poverty is not created or perpetuated by the freed market. It is created and perpetuated by large scaled theft and privileges and constraints. This includes punitive licensing requirements, intellectual property rules (which is extremely petty), land use controls, building codes etc .These things stop or hamper people from applying their skills and assets effectively. We must stop those things to stop structural poverty
I support the provision of equal opportunities and for the protection of those unable to enter the free market labor force due of old age, disability, and/or unemployment
I support robust protections for just possessory claims
I support peaceful, voluntary cooperation and the social life it brings
While force may justified only in response to aggression, peaceful, voluntary cooperation is a moral ideal with implications that go beyond simple non-aggression. Associations of all kinds should be structured in ways that affirm the freedom, dignity, and individuality of all participants in those discussions. This would allow participants the option not only of exit but also of voice. There voice would be a voice of influencing the associations’ trajectories and exercising as much individual discretion within them as possible.
I oppose all government interference in socioeconomic affairs that does not align with the Left Libertarian ideology or my views in this blog . That type of big gov is a groundless, pernicious dichotomy
I support very specific forms of Universal Basic Income, ,like the UBI in Alaska as noted in Reason “Every year since 1982, all residents of Alaska receive an equal dividend as their share of the dividend of the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF), now worth over $61 billion. Rich or poor, adult or child, everyone has received a Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) of $1,000 per year on average for over 30 years. Is Alaska a socialist utopia? Do people move to Alaska to worship at the altar of Karl Marx? Nope. Alaska is a red state, but not that kind of red state. It's a conservative state where everyone gets what too many media outlets refer to as "free money.'…” and the forms of UBI that Classical liberals support
I support socioeconomic transformations through combating social ills and injustices
I support poor people’s squatting on government or abandoned property,
I am ok with a healthy class analysis
I am somewhat conditionally very ok with common ownership of property and modern egalitarian holdings of natural resources (ideally unowned but maybe collectively too even if it organized) if it can be done in a way that the Alliance of the Libertarian Left would support
I generally support conditional private property rights, especially based on occupation and use. So I believe in the moral legitimacy of private ownership
I support people controlling their own healthcare by using the tax disbursements to set up their own schools and health care coopertative, including mutualism policies to help other Americans buy superior health insurance and medicine across state lines and across international borders. The government would only collect taxes and distribute the revenue back to the people, it wouldn't run the programs.
I support the repeal of all social health insurance policies for non essential health and medical things and cosmetic surgeries, and and I favor private and consumer driven social insurance policies generally and conditionally only for them
Personally, I would like the welfare system/state to be removed or to be downsized to become a minimal welfare system/state (i.e short term safety nets for the working class). Which might include ending or limiting food stamps, subsized housing, etc. People who cannot support themselves should get help from family, church, community ,private charity etc
Legality wise, I support a moderate Welfare state (possibly similar to the Otto von Bismarck welfare model) and Welfare Chauvinism (I am a Welfare Chauvinist). Legality wise I believe the welfare system/state should be removed only if it means abolishing the government and the bad forms of Capitalism (which we should be striving for)
I support SSI being phased out for a private voluntary system
I believe the state inherently violates personal autonomy
I believe the view that beneficent government has used its power to counter corporate predation, is fundamentally flawed. In my opinion, the government intervention in the economy has largely benefited established players at the expense of marginalized groups,
I am against economic vulnerability . But I believe we need mutual aide (without taxes, regulations and limited medical care) to combat that.
Mutual aide feels more natural and positive than one sided aide and it also removes the poor social stigma of those receiving that aide. Moreover, people can and will spend their own money on poverty relief, but they’re likely to do so much more efficiently and intelligently than state officials deploying tax revenues), poverty-producing state regulations, and limitations on choice in areas like medical care.
Inequitable distribution of wealth is caused more by monopoly (like Facebook, Twitter, Nike, Disney), which deprives labor of its product. We must destroy the banking monopoly, establish financial freedom, and then down will go the interest on money via competition that is beneficently influenced
Capital will be set free (and then reformed via Social Democracy) and basically be something different, businesses will grow and do good, new enterprises will start up, labor will be in demand, and eventually labor wages will increase to a level with its product
I am generally against government regulations in minimum wage since it drives up the cost of hiring workers. I favor loosening minimum wage laws so that overall unemployment rate can be reduced and low-wage workers, unskilled workers, visa immigrants and those with limited education or job experience can find employment.
I support a repeal of any laws which impede the ability of any people to find employment while I oppose government fostered-forced retirement and heavy interference in the bargaining process.
I am not a fan of Build Back Better
etc
I am against the federal government giving money to cities and states for Halloween events, Halloween merchandise, Valentine’s Day events and Valentine’s Day merchandise. That is evil communism and I won’t let those states and cities use that money for Halloween or Valentines Day .I won’t even allow those states and cities to get that money from the federal government for those purposes. Ronald Reagan and Freddie Hayek would fully agree with me on this
I want all money that states and cities have allocated for Halloween and Valentines Day to be reallocated to non holiday related things.
Values
I really feel that Anarchists should have a good head on their shoulders
I support national values
I support moral values
I am against people throwing other people, especially in work and politics under the bus
I am a fan of Survivalism and I think it is a good concept to live by
I support Individualism (including ‘gross’ individuality) and Individual sovereignty .Individualism is when you recognize the family unit and household can be as exploitative as the factory. I am strongly in favor of individual liberty
I am a Pacifist (though Anarcho Pacifist fits better) with some elements of the non aggression principle thrown into the mix. I reject all violence even for defensive purposes in virtually nearly all cases
I am against people having a sense of entitlement
I am open minded to the view that lower class people (and people of all classes for that matter) being raised in single parent homes instead of 2 parent homes is an issue that needs to be discussed.
I believe if lower income people had the same type of parenting they had around the mid 20th century our country would be better. Parents should always know where their children are and what they are doing. It should be harder for young people to hooky from school nowadays. Until we destroy the heiarchal unit, we have adhere to traditional family structure
Christians should do a better job helping the lower class in their communities. We can’t rely on police to do it
Lower class people shouldn't blame society for their ills but blame themselves for their problems
Some of my Anarcho Libertarian ideologies comes from similar ways of thought that Classical Liberalism comes from .But I feel that Classical Liberalism should reject the state and all those other meaningless social constructs.
Comments
Post a Comment